Indiana Palladium, Volume 9, Number 50, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County, 28 December 1833 — Page 1

ZZ""1 1 M' " ' " "" ' "" " . i . , . . - . i I. . ... II I I ' 1 ' I -I. 1

Dy David V. Cnlley. Terms $3 PER YEAR 33 PER CEXT. D1SCOVXT MADE OX ADVANCE, OR 101 OX HALF YEARLY PAYMEXTS. ivi wiTijrTiiBVirirT voil. nx.i

CORRESPONDENCE Between Messrs. Jackson and Robinson, members of the Senate of Pennsylvania, and the Hon. Richard Rush, From the Philadelphia Sun. We have obtained for publication, the following correspondence between Misers. Jackson and Robineon, members of the Senate of Pennsylvania, and the Hon. Richard Rush. LETTER TO MR. RUSH. West Chester, Nov. 12, 1S33. Dear Sir: The undersigned members of the Senate of Pennsylvania, having heretofore supported you for 17. S Senator, and expecting that you will again be a candidate for that station, are desirous of obtaining your opinion upon some questions which our constituents deem of much importance. It is rumored, and apparently upon respectable authority, that you are opposed to the recharter of the United States Bank, and in favor of the late removal of the deposites; and if we should support a man who is known to hold opinions of this nature we believe we will be acting contrary to the wishes jof our constituents, as we certainly will be against our own judgment. Wc therefore respectfully request that you will favor us with your opinion on these subjects; and that we should bo left at liberty to make the correspondence public, if we should think it advisable.

lours respectfully, WILLIAM JACKSON, JOHN ROBINSON. Richard Rush, Esq. MR. RITSH S KEPLV. Sydenham, near Philadelphia, ) Nov. 22, 1833. Gentlemen: I received, only the day before yesterday, your letter of the 12th inst. making inquiry as to some opinions that I have been supposed to give on questions of a public nature; your object being to ascertain if there be foundation for the rumors that have ascribed them to me. Your inquiries are two-fold; first, whether I am opposed to the recharter of the U. S. Bank; and secondly, whether lam in favor of the late removal of the public deposites from that institution. Your station as members of a branch of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, entitles your application to the most respectful consideration: apart from the political friendship of which I have been the subject, at your hands. It is little my habit to obtrude opinions upon others, unasked, still less where I suppose there might exist any want of accordance; but a call like the present, comes with the highest claims to my attention. There is another ingredient in the call, awaken ing reflection. It is known to me that you are of that portion of my fellow citizens, who believe in the public mischiefs of freemasonry, and have formed themselves into a party to overcome it. Upon what ground citizens of this class, who are of no small number in this State, stand in relation to the public measures, and other parties of this country, is an inquiry of some interest. I feel, therefore, that I cannot approach the consideration of the two queries you have addressed to me, without some preliminary remarks. Your letter, by my estimate of its purport and tendency, cannot be rightly appreciated, or the answer to it adequately framed, without those remarks. I must therefore pray your indulgence in making them, sincerely hoping that in the end we may arrive at conclusions not entirely dissimilar upon any point. I, too, am an Anti-mason. I am so from my belief in the public importance of that cause. I stand upon the evidence we have had that masonry is nbove the law, its oaths being found of more force than the force of government, acting through the judiciary to overcome therm My other ground for considering it so is that the power of masonry rs such, and such its temper when opposed, that the press is afraid of it It will not publish facts by which the public at large may judge of its whole nature. It will make known the charities it disoenses, but not the crimes of which it is the parent. The evidence of this is also complete, for while our thousand newspapers Will readily publish full accounts of other murders, that of Morgan remains untold by any but the Anti-masonic papers with the rarest exceptions; untold in the true nature of the conspiracy that produced it; in the variety of authentic particulars that fasten the conspiracy, as the deed, upon Masons, and as nurtured in the bosom of their lodges, and in other aggravations rendering it altogether, the most remarkable crime of the age. It is on this double demonstration that Masonry tramples on the law and press, for I go on no other grounds, that I regard it as so formidable a public evil; and seeing that its influence cannot be put down, but by carrying the question to the polls, I hold the right of doing 60. I believe that the stumbling block to this conviction not being general, is want of information. Hence I regard the power of 3Iasonry over the law, ns caused by its sway over the press; not silencing it by money directly scattered, or in that way enlisting defence; but by threatening the subscription lists of newspapers, and other modes of vengeance. If this great instrument in ferretting out the truth, had turned its attention to the conduct of the lodge from first to last, when the blood of a citizen, still unavenged, was shed by its members; if it had done its duty without fear or favor, there would have been no Anti-masonic party. Its object would have been accomplished by the whole people laying masonry in the dust. There would have been no cry of persecution raised to save it, at least out of the pale of the order; no declamation about encreachftient on the private tastes or social enjoyments of an order purporting, it is true, to be formed for good fellowship and beneficence, and let it be allowed often porforming offices of each; but the spirit of whose oaths was capable of engendering outrages which not all the conservative guards of society could prevent, or its vindicatory justice punish. The influence of Masonry over the press, I therefore, consider as the source of its escape from universal indignation after its great atrocity; and to th same cause I impute its continued reign, fraught with he same dangers to socity in future the same combinations against its rights and victories over its tribunals as have been seen in the past. It is the situation then in which the general press of the country stood at the era I am recalling, that lies at the root of our cause. It led to its formation; it points to its duty. Upon the press then, let Antixnaaonry keep its eye. In re-asserting on this occasion what I hold to be the-public evils of masonry, I desire, as I invariabtyhavft done, to exempt from any agency in their production the enlightened and pureminded of the

association, whether standing high or low. Ilnhap- ;

pily the counsels of these too often become feeble, while the weak and ill-disposed read in their ma sonic oaths, unlawful at all times, and peculiarly strong and misleading in language, the warrant of j crimes, and of lapses in their civil duties, against which their obligations to the state have again and again been found to plead ineffectually. I flatter myself that we agree in what I have said, so far, of our cause. Its primary object is the downfall of masonry by employing to that end, legal and honorable means. It is for this, that we are a party. But broad and primary as the object is, Anti-mansons have also other political duties. All that may affect the welfare of the community through the operation of legislative or executive measures, every thing that they may enter into the policy of our home affairs or foreign relations, all acts in short of public administration, it is as much their province as that of other citizens to aim at understanding and passing upon. Placed, as it were, between the two other political parties of the nation, and asking the favors of neither, they are likely, from their very position, to be but the more impartial in their judgments; and, forming them, there can be no obligation to repress the expression of them. When, for example, a twelve-month ago, the Union seemed rocking to its centre under the tempest from Carolina; when the friends of liberty in this hemisphere were aghast, and its foes in the other, on tiptoe to exult over the expected fall of j the fairest fabric of free government upon earth. when at that portentous crisis, the present chief magistrate threw the shield of his patriotism and courage over the glorious structure, benting the tempest back, were Anti-masons to stifle all acknowledgment of such services, because he was not the President of their election I do not believe that such were their feelings. For one, they were not mine. Opposition to him was not the basis of their organization, any more than pledges to support. I take this remark to be fundamental to the objects and character of our cause. It brings me, without more of introduction, to the main purport of your letter. This I do not mean to put by, but to meet with the openness which its own spirit invites. I was the former friend of the Bank of the United States. What I have written in its favor remains unchanged, and I desire to recall nothing I have said. But I know not the rule of public consistency or moral obligation that is to bind me to an approval of its recent proceedings. As to any party tie, flhat I have just abjured. Their proceedings are to be weighed in the scale of their own merits, and the decision pronounced accordingly. If hostile prepossessions are to be discarded, we must take care not to be misled by anterior partialities. The Bank has, in my opinion, gone into a false position towards the government and country. It is a subordinate corporation the creature of the government and whilst this should abridge the exercise of none of its rights, it should keep it mindful of its true sphere. For what was it created! not to benefit private stockholders, any advantages to whom must be purely incidental, but to aid the government in its operations of finance. Its charter would never otherwise have been granted. It was called into being by legislation will, to subserve public end; to be made thecheif depository of the public fund; to give the necessary facilities for transferring them from place to place, that the public creditors might be conveniently paid, thus equalizing at all points the value of the public revenues, 60 operative in making the currency sound; and to perform other duties enjoined by the authority that gave it existence. These were the ends to be promoted. The duties to be performed, brought advantages to the bank, its desire to obtain which was attested by the payment of its bonus. That such a corporation, passing from step to step, should at last be found waging a contest with the government on the faith of the nation's funds, presents a strange spectacle. It is fit to be looked at, both from its novelty and boldness. The executive document, laid before the cabinet on the eighteenth of September, fixed, in many parts, my closest attention. In some, I beheld extraordinary disclosures, in others I thought that I could discern curious analogies. When I arrived at the passage that dwells on the necessity of "ridding the country of an irresponsible power that has attemped to control the Government," the Bank here meaning, truly, I could not avoid thinking of the old object of our jealousy free-masonry. It came into my mind by irresistible association. Each is a monopoly. Each a species of organized confederacy, apart from the body of the people; the one legal, the other self-created and illegal. Each wields a power intended for good, but capable of being tunred to bad account. It is ever the nature of power, as it increases, to forget itself, and slide into abuse. Not less is it of its essence to grow angry, under a scrutiny into its deeds. Now, altho' I do not charge the Bank with having been the cauce of murder, a3 I do masonry, and afterwards controlling' the Government in every effort at detection; T do say that it has committed a gross misap plication of the public funds; that it has sought to act upon public opinion, and thereby control the Government through means in a high degree unjustifiable and even alarming. I say this neither rashly or carelessly, but on full thought. The executive document in question, is a paper of peculiar character. If there be those who think that there is party in it, they may perhaps find, on nearer inspection, that it covers a wider ground of principles. It will be easier to abuse, than answer it all. Tt is more comprehensive in the elements deducible from it, than in details, strong as are the latter. In nothing will it stand out in our annals more, than in coming to vindicate the Constitution from vicious constructions. These it will probably beat back, as the Proclamation did nullification. I do not mean to go into commentaries upon the wThole of this paper, I will only for the present bring into view as much as I hold necessary to justify my opinions. It contained matter that I presume w-as entirely new to the public. It undoubtedly was to me. I read, for the first time, three resolutions passed bv the Directors of the Bank; one in November, 1830; the second in March, 1831; the third under some date subsequent, not given, but very recent. They are all short, and might almost be slurred over as nothing mere cheeseparings. But an ancient geometrician was wont to say that he could move the earth, if he had a spot firm enough to stand upon. So, these resolutions go their length of laying the whole funds of the Bank, including those which it held of the government, at the feet of its chief officer. There is no limit, absolutely none. They do it not in plain English that would have been revolting but the construction is inevitable. One of them, as if to veil with a semblance

of excuse, a power that might well have startled

any body of men about to confer it, speak of the wis dom and integritv of that chief officer. I call in question neither; I am dealing with the public acts of a public institution, that owes high duties to the government and thence to its great constituent body, the nation; and I assert the flagrant abuse of its duties. Who doubted the wisdom and integrity of Washington Yet, when was he invested with an unlimited command over the public purse! See the appropriation acts, how every item is specified down to the most minute; where enumeration is not possible, mark how the sum is always limited where the service cannot be defined. This is the rub of prudent expenditure all over the world; systems of finance would tumble to pieces withoutit. Public bodies never disregard it. The Congress of the United States that should overleap it, would have to face the disapproving voice of a whole people a voice that would make itself heard in thunders. The very contingent fund sometimes placed at the President's disposal for secret service, money is invariably fixed in amount. With the knowledge of all this, with the knowledge that the representatives of the nation have never on any occasion dared to hand over any part of its funds to a public servant, even the most exalted, without limitation, does the bank pass these resolutions. They are passed deliberately, reviewed, adhered to; and defiance flung at the government, whose directors raise their protesting voices against them. If this be not an enormity in the administration of its affairs, I am unable to imagine the difinition of one. If such conduct ought not to hold the Bank to a sharp responsibility, I beg to know what it may do next? If its former friends must still hold on to their allegiance, how much farther will they be prepared to go Perhaps it may be said that the purpose was single; that it looked to nothing more than to cause ''such documents and papers to be prepared and circulated as might communicate to the people information in regard to the nature and operations of the Rank." I give the terms of one of the resolutions. Why, this was precisely the worst purpose for which the discretion could have been entrusted the very worst. Observe the terms; on their face they are measured, decorous at first blush, not seeming objectionable, but lawful. A friend of the bank might say that they were simply designed and no more than necessary to enable it to defend itself by spreading the truth in fair argument. Not so the plain analysis of them. They transcepd all such boundaries. At their comprehensiveness I am Ftill amazed. Words so quiet, but of such latent virtue, human wit could not better have framed. Grattan, by a strong figure, said of the first Pitt, that he was able by the force of his genius, to strike a blow in the world that would resound through the universe; and here, literally, this resolution was of force to subsidize the press of a hemisphere! Its seminal principle was susceptible of expansion, although indefinite. Every thing might have been done under it, to the purpose in hand. A nation's revenue was ready to redeem the pledge of its extravagance. As many writers as the French revolution stirred up, might have been put in requisition under its potency. Y alpole said, "let me write the ballads of a country, and I care not who writes its laws." With this little resolution in his hand, he might have done a thousand times more than with his ballads; for when had he even such a command over the press Need I pause longer on conduct, in spirit so bold, in object so dangerous, in violation of law so presumptuous I want words, gentlemen, consistently, with the respect I feel for you and owe to myself, in which to express my condemnation of it; proceeding too, I repreat, from a subordinate corporation, created to be the servant of the government and nation, yet seeking to become master. Perhaps it may also be said, that, notwithstanding the boundless license, no great sums were, in point of fact, expended. I reply, if it were so, this would in nowise absolve those who gave the license. In holding public bodies to responsibility for the abuse of power, the practical extent to which they go, is often less considered than the assumption of a dangerous principle. It is this, at which the jealously of freedom takes alarm, without waiting un til all the mischiefs follow. It is this, for which government and tyrants have been laid low. The "tainted breeze" roused our forefathers. But I take issue here also. The sums were not small. Thousands, tens of thousands, were lavished, as hundreds of thousands, and millions, might have been. The expenditures in the offices of the heads of the four great departments at Washington for contingencies, including all their printing, for home and foreign service, have not been as much, I will answer for it, in equal time, as those under this memorable resolution. Is this nothing I mistake all ideas of magnitude, if the American people will think so. If the Bank had not been stopped; if its power of thus Using the public money had not been overthrown by a stronger power, backed by justice and the constitution, which took the money away, how much more would have gone in the same manner, we can only conjecture. It had deliberately asserted the principle of wrong, and was at work under its cover, the hottest of the battle not having come on. I come, lastly, to the chief point. TIio Bank acted only in self-defence under attacks from the government, it seems; for this is the great plea, if I have caught it aright from those who would justify its alliance with the press. Let it be weighed for an instant. The President was opposed to the Bank and gave his reasons. Suppose they were bad; did he not give them on his responsibility as executive head of the country? does he not concur in laws or dissent; superintend the whole public administration, the Bank's affairs with the rest, on this responsibility? and were his reasons to be pronounced attacks and met in warfare as they were viet? What would I then silence the Bank; make a slave of it! Far from it. Its directors its army of stockholders its friends in all quarters, for it had them, numerous, respectable, powerful where was the spontaneous zeal, on their own means; intermingling with the people, and, with their tongues and pens, in a country free as air, meeting all unjust attacks? This

would have been the way to "communicate inform- ury of the nation, but mere recipients of its troasationin regard to the nature and operations of lure. The whole disposable money of the nation,

lae name. - Here was an ample arena; and I tor one, would have been ready to step into it, on all fair occasions, as a private on the side of the Bank with my poor service. But if it would go to war officially; if, thinking itself party-defendant, it was bent upon fighting it out against a branch of the gaYcrnmcnt under the resolutions of its belli-

gerent board -unmunilion ought surely to have been derived elsewhere than from the public deposites. Not a stiver of those ouqht to have bee n touched. The plea is objectionable every way. There is no claim for it in equity any more than under constitution or law, whilst it violates all decorum. The whole cause of the Bank wis abundantly explained and vindicated before the people in legitimate ways; in official reports in both Houses of Congress, remarkable for fullness and ability; and

in authentic, responsible and able speeches. These, comprehending a mass of light and information touching its atViirson every point where any j change hid been made of mismanagement, were t printed for the most part at the proper cost of Congress, and circulated as widely, to the full, ns any of the state p ipers, executive or otherwise, or any of the speeches, that exhibited views Adverse to a renewal of its charter. Tint after all this, it should use the public funds as it did, and authorize them to be Hung away without stint, leaves the conduct of this corporation without excuse or palliation. No reasoning, no ingenious ex pi illations, no going off upon collateral points, no resort of! any kind, can uphold it in the eyes of a dispassion- I ate and scrutinizing public. It is palpable. Every body can understand, nobody can mistake it, as the consummation of official abuse. There 1 leave if. Permit me now to pans". I do so for the purpose of a short appeal. The force of it, if I judge from my own rnind, will not be lost upon either of yours. If anti-masons object to the Lodge that it makes the press dumb, if th's be the corner stone of their cause, can they look with other feelings than those of reprobation on the unwarrantable nets of another powerful institution for stimulating it to noise? 1 would fain persuade myself not. It would be a slander upon their principles. I would say to them, if I dared use so much freedom, go forward in your principles, Bmk or Lodge. When the press is gone, our liberties are gone; and be assured, that it is in as much danger when approached through the seductive influence of an unlimited purse, as when whipped and scourged into obedience by the Lodo. I therefore think that the President acted wisely in withdrawing from the bank the public monneys. The incontcstible proof of their improper application might well convey to him an alarm, making it bis imperative duty to transfer them all. I give the measure my npprobation. 1 think that he deserves the plaudits of the nation. That ho had the constitutional right to take the measure, I believe ns fully. He has drawn no money from the Treasury, in a sense infrirging the constitutional prohibition. Moneys cannot Ik? drawn out for the purpose of Icing expended, without appropriation by law. Here lies the true meaning of the prohibition. It can have no other. The cl a use in which it is found may show this; for it adds, that "a regular statement and account of the receipis and expenditures of all public money, shall be published from time to time,'" To say that the President cannot, under his general powers by law, remove public money from one place ofdepositc where he thought it in danger, to another where be believes it would be safe, is at war with the first duties of executive magistracy. To deny all consideration to arguments drawn from such a source, belongs not to good reasoning. The illustration that lias been frequently put, is an irresponsible one; suppose on an adjournment of Congress, proof to be had that a bank holding large sums was tottering, would the President wait until the next session for their removal, because previous appropriations might not absorb them all? The affirmative of such a doctrine, takes its stand upon a narrow technicality. There is no substance in it. It would strike at the root of all government, as well as at the particular laws of our own. It would leave the accumulated treasureofa nation unguarded, lbc sport of accident, faithlessness, or dilapidation in a thousand ways. L-onflagration might consume it; a deluge might sweep it away. If the government had built money vaults under the capitol, and a million of dollars bad been lodged there under the usual covering warrants and thus been lawfully in the Treasury, at the time the British army was marching upon Washington, would any reasonable person have doubted President Madison's rifiht to have withdrawn this money instantly? Being withdrawn, will any one say that it wis not still in the Treasury, although out of the vaults, whilst on the road to Harper's Ferry for safety? The power of the President under the sixteenth section of the act incorporating the Bank, to withhold deposites, could only have been conferred from the public danger to their being longer made. To imagine that the same reason would not be applicable towards enabling him to withdraw those made hitherto, would involve an incongruity not to be charged on any Legislature. It follows from unavoidable construction upon the context, as in various other cases in law. To deny it, would be to say that the nation need not put to risk any moreof its funds in this receptacle, but must lose without an effort all there already like the den into which the footsteps of victims might be traced whilst none were ever seen returning. For the portion not deposited, as for the portion remorcd, the President must abide the voice of Congress and the nation, on the reasons be gives. Money removed for the purpose of safe keeping, r.nd no other, remains as much in the Treasury, legally, as if it had not been touched. The Treasury is all over the Union. Its attribute is ubiquity. It is in no one local spot, as such; not in an iron chest, not in a marble edifice, not in wooden drawers, none of which are to be called the Tieas wherever it may be, can alone give ihe proper idea of its treasury. Lvery part of it remains in the Treasury, whether lodged in one place or another, until drawn out under an impropriation. That alone disjoins it from the Treasury in a legal sense. If lost or rifled, then indeed it disappears de facto. I bold these maxims to be fundamental.

The President has clearly, therefore, in mv uu

mewt drawn no money from the Treasury, or ordered it to bo drawn, for the distinction is but in words, in the sense prohibited. Il is there itill, for any act tint ho Ins done. But it has been slid that tlie Secretary of tha Treasury alone has power over the dWitos, when and whatever can bo exercised. This doctiiim claims to rest on the sixteenth section of the bank act, which names that officer as the poison who is to order and direct tint deposites shall not bo made, and that he shall hy before Congress the reasons; not his reasons it may be rcmaikcd, if o small nn illustration, iut still an illustration, may bo used; but the reasons. The idea of a President commitling an net of usurpation on n Secretary of thn Treasury, hss in it something new, when I coino to open ihe Constitution. That instrument establishes three co-ordinate branches of government ; the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The powers of the first it gives to Congress, of tho second to tho President, and of the third to the courts. Whence the secretaries of tho executive depart mentF, of which the trensuiy is one, derive nny independent executive power, I am unable topercieve. Tho sixtecnih section of the bank act does,it is true, designate him as tho cdlict-r for thn duty mentioned; so dors tho iecmd section say that the subscriptions to tho bank, vh-n first made, am to bo returned to him; and tho fifth, that none of the funded debt subscribed as stock should be sold by ihe bank for coin or bullion, without previous notice to him; the sixth, that he should make tho Unitcd'Statcs suhsciiplions; the fourteenth rule, that with his approbation ihe bank might employ other banks in place of its own branches, for doing certain nets of business; and thn fifteenth, tint thi alf.iirs of the bank were to belaid before, hin in weekly reports nil tho provisions plainly regarling this officer as the regular organ of theexicjtive for tho performance of such and similar duties, made necessary on tho incorporation of an institution for the exclusive purpose of aiding the (loveinmcntin its f aancial administration. But not one of these clauses takes away tho controlling power of the President. If it did, tho second article of tho Constitution tnigbt ns well be repealed; more especially ns it also declares that tho President, not any other officer, is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Could Congress create a (ieneral or Admiral, with power independent of the president, in the f.ico of the clause tint makes him Commander-in-Chief by sea and land? Lvery voice will say no. I bold it tobe equally clear that Congress cannot, in nny case, charge nn officer in the civil service, appointed by the President, with any executive duty to bo performed independent of his controlling authority. If his military and naval supremacy as secured by the Constitution would be a bar in tho ono ens?, the investment of the executive power in him alone, would as certainly form one in the other His control ovor every public officer, tho resulting principle that prevades every part of the public administration. It meets us at every step in tho foreign service in the homo service in peace and war under all conjunctures. The only officers of his appointment who can, by any possibility be above bis control, arc the judges. Thero would be neither harmony nor efficacy in our system, but for bis singleness in the excutive. It has therefore been placed on a basis too clear to bo misunderstood, and too firm to bo overset. That the judges are independent of him, is because they are not of the executive branch, but one that is coordinate; and because tho tenure of their offices is not in his hands. Tho absence of these two in gredient, necessarily throws hack every other officer in a position of inferiority to tho President. Thero arc duties that savour of the judicial, developed by Congress on tho Secretary of tho Treasury. The chief may bo found in the oct of March, 1793, for discharging insolvent debtors; but ns they are not judicial in tho sense of co-ordinate authority, I should hold it to be incontrovertible that tho right of executive supervisions in cases appearing to require it for ends of public or individual justice, is not token away; and this, although the President's namo is not to be found in eilbcrof tho acts. There is no other way of reconciling tho second article of the Constitution with tho provisions of these and numerous other laws regulating the detailsof administration, that lie scattered over the face of tho statute book. I cannot therefore doubt the President's right to remove the dcpcc'tcs, or order their removal, however tho Secretary of tho Treasury may have conscientiously held a different opinion. His paper submitted to the cabinet on the eighteenth of September settles, by at least one authentic precedent, this ns the rightful construction of the Constitution. It has taken tho true stand upon its elements, saving it from heresies under which, if they prevailed, it would soon perish in-some of i!s best parts. The paper should id this respect bo especially hailed by those who would desire loser !. the true meaning of the executive power, by turning to the original principles and permanent ends of the instrument. All such may with safety join the illustrious Madison in saying that "if any power be in its nature Executire, tt is that of appointing, overseeing and controlling those who execute the law." I must bring my letter to a close. The subjects of it have been treated less at largo than the importance of some of them would have borne ; nevertheless, sufficiently so 1 hope to explain the ground of my opinions. My reply to ono of your specific inquiries, has been given. The other I meet by saying, tint harm opposed to a renewal of the Bank's charter unless under such invincible guards as to cut it olVfrom all possibility ofcommitting in future the tnissapplxatiou of the nation's funds I have expressed my conviction of its having done, or nny similar abuses. The nature of your latter forces tno to say, in cenclusion, a word of myself. 1 have not nought ihe situation of cnudidatesbip for tho Senate of the United States; yet am not tho less greatful fjr tho good will of those ho thought tuu worthy of if,